Sunday, November 28, 2010

Do galaxies shrink with time?

Albeit Universe is expanding seemingly (Hubble 1929), the astronomers have found recently, the galaxies are actually shrinking with time. Because a true galaxy-size increase would be incompatible with standard cosmology, if not with the laws of gravity, authors indicate the presence of systematical errors in Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Albeit I do believe, this finding is actually consistent with particle dispersion model of Universe expansion, in which objects smaller then the wavelength of CMBR are expanding with time, but the objects larger then the CMBR wavelength are collapsing instead in analogy with capillary wave dispersion at the water surface.

In accordance with this model many phenomena related to red shift actually disappaer for CMBR wavelengths (CMBR photons cannot disperse with itself). Shrinking of galaxies is therefore consistent with AWT model of surface ripples dispersion at the water surface and with time symmetry of omnidirectional Universe expansion, predicted with AWT. The Universe should expand seemingly in light shorter then the wavelength of CMBR, which is known as a red shift (Hubble 1929).

In light of wavelengths larger then CMB wavelength a blue shift and attenuation of light with distance should be actually observed. The attenuation of distant radio source with distance has been already observed, too. Last July, US astronomers announced surprising results from a high-altitude balloon experiment called ARCADE-2, which had made careful measurements of the sky at radio wavelengths. The background radio emission, which is the component smoothly distributed across the whole sky, was several times brighter than anyone was expecting.

Aether Wave Theory cannot predict the absolute value of the gain observed in this moment - but it predicts, at the wavelength of CMBR this gain should be zero, which is what has been actually observed. Actually it's just a consequence of fact, for structures larger then the wavelenght of CMBR the gravity dominates over quantum effects (pressure of CMBR), so that such objects are collapsing. Because these objects are observable only with light of comparable wavelength, the Universe should appear collapsing, when being observed in radiowaves.

Regarding blue shift of radiowave source, it has been observed possibly, too as a Pioneer maser anomaly (compare the LaViolette's blueshifting prediction). Blue shift is notoriously difficult to observe, because of lack or reliable reference sources of known frequency (hydrogen vibration spectra of remote sources are absorbed heavily with interstellar gas). But some man-made objects are already remote enough to observe blueshift with artificial sources of radiowaves.

It means, the time arrow is actually violated, our Universe doesn't travel through time in one direction. One half of Universe expands due the pressure of radiation and its entropy increases. The second part (this one larger then ~2 mm) collapses with its gravity instead and its entropy goes down.

12 comments:

The value of small structure constant basically says, how much the observable matter is transparent. In dense aether model the remote galaxies should appear larger and more transparent, because they behave like the objects disappearing in fog of vacuum density fluctuations, which are responsible for the red shift. We can consider it as one of many predictions of dense aether model.

The standard Big Bang model predict instead, due the expansion of space-time the remote galaxies should appear smaller. This hasn't been confirmed with observations, which are supporting dense aether model instead.

The fine structure constant is a running constant, and thus isn't actually constant, see for example the NIST web, where you can read:

"...Thus (value of) alpha depends upon the energy at which it is measured, increasing with increasing energy, and is considered an effective or running coupling constant. Indeed, due to e e- and other vacuum polarization processes, at an energy corresponding to the mass of the W boson (approximately 81 GeV, equivalent to a distance of approximately 2 x 10-18 m), (mW) is approximately 1/128 compared with its zero-energy value of approximately 1/137. Thus the famous number 1/137 is not unique or especially fundamental..."

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html

So, if the universe was formed at the GUT energy, then the value of alpha should be zero, because all forces were equal that "time". We don't observe it, which introduces another problem for Big Bang theory.

Did the Universe Have a Beginning?We also do see some galaxies that are blue shifted. Andromeda, for example, is headed towards us, and appears blue shifted. This would become a huge fine tuning problem because you would require the energy loss rate to be tuned to explain the receding galaxies, but not have the effect be so large that it prevents blue shifted objects that we know are heading towards us from being detected. In dense aether model the galaxies are condensing from vacuum and evaporating into radiation again, so it lacks these fine tuning problems.In AWT (Aether Wave Theory aka dense aether model) the red shift is explained with dispersion of light at the density fluctuations of vacuum. This model fits many recent observations better. We should realize though, that the time dimension is formed in the same way in AWT, so that the steady state Universe model tends to converge with dynamic universe model in distant perspective. In dynamic model the observable area of universe become a subject of phase transition like the density fluctuation inside of gas and/or traveling quantum wave (Laura Mersini). In general, the random Universe model of AWT makes all cosmological theories indistinguishable each other at the sufficiently distant perspective.

Because a true galaxy-size increase would be incompatible with standard cosmology, if not with the laws of gravity, our result may indicate the existence of systematical errors, either in the SDSS data set or in the standard correction procedures. This is just an example of how contemporary science works: when some effect violating mainstream paradigm is found, it's rather auto-censored out for not to interfere with future grant support. In this way the phenomena like the Universe collapse or the cold fusion are covered not of before layman public, but even before the rest of scientists. These results are still perfectly valid and the experiment always goes first in physics. Richard P. Feynman: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong".

The violations of relativity are rather easy to find, if you know where to look for it:Intriguingly, the gamma-ray delay is about a day longer than radio observations report for this system. And while the flares and their playback show similar gamma-ray brightness, in radio wavelengths one blazar image is about four times brighter than the otherBoth phenomena are predicted with dispersive model of light: the shortwavelength waves penetrate particle environment slower and they're more scattered during it.

It's known notoriously that as the object is moved to higher redshifts its angular size first decreases (as naively expected) - but soon begins to increase after passing through a minimum value. The angular size of a galaxy does not depend on its current distance to us, but its distance when the light we currently see from it was emitted (here using "distance" synonymous with "proper distance"). Look at the first diagram in Figure 1 in this paper, notice how the size of the past light cone in terms of proper distance firstly increases as we go back in time, before reaching a maximum and decreasing to zero at t = 0. Curiously the angular size of a typical galaxy at a redshift z ~ 1 is roughly one arc second which is close to the limiting value of the angular resolution (`seeing') allowed by the Earth's atmosphere Einstein is quoted as saying.